Struan and Peter & MDs.
(this was written Friday so just a greeting for Roger!)
For Peter.
Yes, it was 'wude' to exclude you from our learned dispute. Your
argument for the ONLY subjectivity case is as valid to-day as it
was in Bishop Berkely's time, but SOMism has evolved from the
primitive stage of one person (subject) facing the world (object). It
has invaded the individual and has now reached a depth that only
Struan can fathom.
It has a parallel in particle physics where there once were
immaterial forces governing matter like in the earliest atom model.
Since then the immaterial/material division has crept deeper and
deeper into the system. Now there are force carrier particles:
gluons for the strong force and gravitons for gravity. Immaterial
matter in other words!!. A latter day physician don't care about the
immaterial/material division, they are - like Ayer - "quite happy...."
But my point is that the underlying subject/object fault runs in
parallel, for each level that is passed we find ourselves faced with
S/O on a still subtler plane. Struan will possibly protest the
relationship between "immaterial" and "subjective" (like he refused
to buy Pirsig's shift from subjective to mind), but to most people
these are two of the same kind. A ghost is (to an occultist) an
immaterial phenomenon, to a psychologist it's a subjective
delusion - in the mind.
I agree with you that the ONLY "subjectivity" argument is
watertight, that was what blew Phaedrus of ZAMM's mind - and
came to be the starting point of the quality insight and - later - the
complete MOQ. Pirsig could have called his teachings
Metaphysics of Subjectivity, of Relativity, of Mind, of
Meaning.....anything ("Significance" is my favourite because it's so
close to the only other metaphysical new-comer Charles Peirce),
but value is such a "good" concept.
For Struan:
No more can be said in the Ayer case except that his introductory
note: ".....it is surely not inconceivable that there should be a
language in which the sense experiences were described by the
use of purely qualitative ...." has materialized. If you agree to my
metaphysics/physics comparison above we understand each other
perfectly. Physicists don't bother with the immaterial/material
notion as a working hypothesis and some thinkers are satisfied
with the way the subject/object seem to merge.
I will go directly to your Pirsig quotation. (which I immediately
identified as the SODAV paper). I have said it before (very early in
the Lila Squad discussion) and I'll repeat it: I am not happy with the
SODAV paper at all, and see that my worries were well grounded.
The opening sentence gives the impression of a retreat to the early
ZAMM stage of Pirsig's Quality metaphysics - the "trinity" version
of mind, matter and Quality and the mystical reciprocal creation
process. I don't blame you for using it of course. My explanation is
that Pirsig had accepted the invitation from the conference and he
knew that most people knew the ZAMM, but hardly anyone LILA ,
so to come banging in with the full-fledged MOQ would have had
little impact upon the audience who expected more of the new-age
stuff they knew.
Consequently your points of agreement and of dissent is of no
particular interest to the MOQ proper. I see that you "home in" on
the shift from mind to subject, and from matter to object. It may be
like the immaterial=subject equation: Questionable in a learned
circle, but to the man in the street it's the same airy stuff
contrasted to the solid tangible counterpart.
The MOQ says that quality is all there is and from the all-pervading
dynamics several static layers have formed. As the first static fall-
out were inorganic patterns, mind (in the mind/matter sense weren't
actual. From this NEW dynamic/static dualism the S/O dualism is
nil and void, nowhere in the static sequence does "mind" enter the
picture - not even at Intellect IMHO!.
The "derivation" part (that quality can be derived from the
relationship of mind and matter with each other) may pertain to the
hot stove example. The various static levels aren't yet presented,
Pirsig still moves inside the SOM landscape and tries to persuade
from that point of view. I know that you Struan don't find that proof
very persuasive and I will not try to elaborate. The new dividing line
is world-shaking because the mind-matter riddle disappears and
even if Pirsig says that the SOM is 'contained' by the MOQ that
means a "de-armed" SOM.
The various points of the SODAV argument that you alternatively
applaud or find fault with may be valid (your objections that is)
because Pirsig lays himself open to the very weakness of the mind-
matter idea he has left in the MOQ proper. As much as I have
warned against the SODAV I have warned against using ZAMM
regarding the MOQ. Pirsig of ZAMM's great achievement was of
conceiving the quality idea FROM the subject-object platform,
but the quality metaphysics is to be found in LILA.
Bye for now
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
